There is growing concern around the length and complexity of workplace grievances and AI Employment Tribunal claims produced with the assistance of AI. The concern is understandable.
Claims running into hundreds of pages can contain numerous allegations that have to be identified, considered and responded to. That places pressure on claimants, respondents and an already stretched Tribunal system.
"Could leadership be distracted by the bloom instead of focusing on the roots?"
A new scapegoat
It is easy to point the finger at AI. Not so long ago, the finger was being pointed at HR. Although the target changes, many of the workplace issues remain remarkably familiar. What is often overlooked is that AI only knows what it is given. Therefore, AI can only work with the information it receives.
It does not know the workplace dynamics unless that context is provided. It does not know which policies exist within that specific business ecosystem. Nor does it know:
- whether an individual has access to them,
- whether they understand them, or
- whether the written standard bears any resemblance to what happens in practice.
"Could leadership be distracted by the bloom instead of focusing on the roots?"
It can organise what has been shared, reflect it coherently to the individual and offer suggestions based on the information it has received. For someone who has struggled to explain what has been happening, that can feel like the listening ear they were looking for within the wider team.
The issue is not that AI listened. A more insightful question is why so much had accumulated before the individual found somewhere they felt able to say it.
The gap between structure and understanding
An individual may not know what is relevant because expectations, policies and procedures were never sufficiently clear. The policy exists but is difficult to access.
Perhaps the employee handbook sits on a shared drive while the employee works predominantly off-site. Maybe the policy was introduced but never properly explained. Another possibility is that it is understood in theory but bears little resemblance to what happens in practice. More commonly, the organisation stopped following it long ago because the business evolved and the policy did not.
In those circumstances, the individual is being asked to exercise judgement without having proper awareness of the structure. It is necessary to have the appropriate perception through the business lens.
Everything can begin to feel relevant because while AI can organise the account, it cannot supply organisational understanding that was never there.
The same weakness can exist on both sides
The difficulty becomes greater when the grievance reaches the business. The person receiving it may be in a remarkably similar position. They may know the relevant policy and procedure exists without clarity of the standard behind it. They may follow each step of the document without exercising the business acumen the situation actually requires.
The policy establishes the purpose; the procedure sets out how it is applied.
A checklist is a summary of what is believed to be in place. However, much like mandatory training, it is not evidence of comprehension. When neither the individual raising the concern nor the person assessing it has sufficient understanding of the structure surrounding them, the increasing noise begins to substitute for clarity.
"That is when the length of the grievance stops being the root issue. Neither is AI"
The Tribunal having to filter
The judgment in Mr D Heath v NHS England (Case Number: 2304017/2023)provides a useful example.
One version of the claimant’s List of Issues ran to 282 pages. The later version was reduced to 168 pages, with 46 grievances removed and 21 remaining.
The claimant had used ChatGPT and Grok to help prepare the List of Issues. He told the Tribunal that he expected to rely on only around 10% of it but as a litigant in person, did not know which 10% he would need. He described the remaining material as a safety blanket.
The judge brought to attention the practical consequence. If most of the material is not required, it still consumes the time of the respondent and the Tribunal until somebody determines what matters.
- It increases cost.
- It increases delay.
- It consumes judicial resources that could otherwise be available to other claimants.
By the later stage of the case, the Tribunal was itself having to impose workable boundaries around what could proceed.
That is proper case management, which also raises a wider question.
How far down the conflict-resolution chain should an issue have to travel before somebody is able to give it structure?
A genuine grievance becomes an unmanageable claim
Another part of the judgment that deserves attention is despite criticising the way the litigation had been conducted, the judge considered that the claimant was genuinely seeking redress for a genuine sense of grievance.
"A genuine sense of grievance and an effective legal claim are not the same thing."
Nor is an unresolved workplace issue the same thing as a well-structured grievance. The presence of excessive material does not automatically mean there was no substance underneath it. Sometimes it means nobody successfully separated the issue from everything that had accumulated around it until much later.
What the proposed ACAS Code is signalling
The proposed revision of the Acas Code of Practice on disciplinary and grievance procedures places greater emphasis on early resolution, clear communication and proportionate fact-finding.
Why it matters
If concerns can be identified, understood and addressed earlier, fewer issues need to travel through every layer of the organisation before somebody finally gives them structure.
Nonetheless, that requires more than updated documentation.
Another policy review will not achieve it by itself.
Neither will another mandatory training session.
Neither will another checklist prepared in readiness for the next legislative change.
Those things may all be necessary but they are not sufficient.
This is the work CAS Ltd focuses on. Looking beyond the visible disruption to understand what it may be signalling about the conditions, decisions and working practices beneath it.
The private mailing list continues that thinking with deeper reflections on policies, leadership responsibility and the conditions shaping the wider business ecosystem.
There is a risk that each compliance response simply adds another layer of soundproofing around an issue leadership has not learned to detect.
A checklist will monitor and confirm that the task was completed. Similarly, a training register will record the people who attended and a good policy will include updated regulations. Meanwhile, the same signals continue travelling through the ecosystem.
Eventually becoming louder with each complaint, grievance and claim. From a couple of lines to hundreds of pages. Then it becomes convenient for AI to be the latest explanation for why the noise has become impossible to ignore.
The noise has not suddenly appeared. Only the ear has become less attuned to hearing it.
The question for leadership
As employment law continues to change, businesses will review policies, update procedures and arrange further training. There is no doubt that they should. However, there is a difference between making a business compliant and having a structure that is understood.
The deeper question is whether the internal community knows how that structure is meant to work before something goes wrong. Is it feasible to recognise an issue while it is still capable of being resolved?
An individual being able to articulate their concern without having to gather months of supporting material is a positive sign of strong roots. As well as those with authority being able to distinguish what requires action, further enquiry and what does not materially advance the concern.
Part of leadership responsibility is noticing when the signals begin to change. Miss them and the issue does not disappear. It will simply travel further before somebody finally gives it structure.